Romans 9

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, our post are evidently crossing. Read post #39 again.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You fail to understand anything I have stated. I have never stated or implied any such thing. Show me where I either stated or implied any such thing.

HP: DW, help me out here.

as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations He first was speaking of. Reason in no wise makes any such leap of judgment. You simply cannot conclude as DW obviously concludes from his manner of using the text as opposed to interpreting the text. If the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated.... - post #28 - HP

You told me to read post 28 for your rebuttal and that is what I did. Twice you make the statement that Paul is speaking about election of "nations" and not election of individuals and that is exactly why I demonstrated he is doing the very reverse. He is repudiating that idea that election of a nation is synonomous with INDIVIDUAL salvation or being a child of promise or a child of God. Individual salvation is based upon individual supernatural birth and individual election NOT NATIONAL ELECTION. Absolute proof that Romans 9:6-13 is about INDIVIDUAL salvation and INVIDUAL election is that Romans 9:15-24 contains Paul's responses to objections to INDIVIDUAL salvation and INDIVIDUAL election. There is no NATIONAL election discussed at all in Romans 9:15-24 but every line is in regard to INDIVDUALS:


15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

All INDIVDUALS are either of the Jews or of the gentiles

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: 1. You fail to see that it is your interpretation of Romans 9 - that National election of Jews is what makes them the children of promise is exactly what Paul is repudiating.

HP: You fail to understand anything I have stated. I have never stated or implied any such thing. Show me where I either stated or implied any such thing. You never have and cannot for all that it matters because I have said nor implied any such thing.
Quote:

DW: Your interpretation was the argument of the common Jew. We are the children of Abraham, we are the chosen nation, and therefore we are "the children of promise" and we are "the children of God."

HP: That was not, is not and has never been my argument. That is either a complete misconception on your part or a paper duck put up by yourself which seem to you as an easy target to refute. At any rate, you completely misrepresent my stated sentiments completely. When you flat out misrepresent another’s views, you are still fighting as one that beateth the wind.

Until you clear up these errors, there is no need to go on.

 

[DHK]

Why are you so lazy DHK? Do your own research if you are so interested in his beliefs. I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own. If you want to know what he has to say, read him for yourself. His books are readily available, online as in hardback cover as far as I know. Who knows, you might learn something.

Reading Calvin certainly taught me some things. One such truth I learned well from Calvin is that you cannot logically deny double predestination coming from the view on election you and DW, by all apparent indications, hold to. See what you can learn from some one might oppose? Go get yourself some real fodder to back up your charge of heresy in regard to his beliefs instead of just believing the lies others say about him.:thumbs:

I don't have to read what Finney says. You spout off his theology all the time. You tell us that we are teaching Calvinism when we haven't read Calvin. But I have read about Finney and his Oberlin Theology. And that is the heresy that you are spouting. I say heresy, because Finney was declared to be a heretic. I am not calling you one.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You fail to understand anything I have stated. I have never stated or implied any such thing. Show me where I either stated or implied any such thing. You never have and cannot for all that it matters because I have said nor implied any such thing.
Quote:


HP: That was not, is not and has never been my argument. That is either a complete misconception on your part or a paper duck put up by yourself which seem to you as an easy target to refute. At any rate, you completely misrepresent my stated sentiments completely. When you flat out misrepresent another’s views, you are still fighting as one that beateth the wind.

Until you clear up these errors, there is no need to go on.

[SIZE="4[I][COLOR="Indigo"]"].....as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations He first was speaking of. Reason in no wise makes any such leap of judgment. You simply cannot conclude as DW obviously concludes from his manner of using the text as opposed to interpreting the text. If the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated[/COLOR][/I]...[/SIZE]. - post #28 - HP

This twice I have posted this now. These are your words not mine. You asked where did I get the idea that you were interpreting this passage to apply to "nations" and not individuals and so here it is in your own words.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Original comment by HP: "].....as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations He first was speaking of. Reason in no wise makes any such leap of judgment. You simply cannot conclude as DW obviously concludes from his manner of using the text as opposed to interpreting the text. If the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated...[/


Here is DW’s misrepresentation of my comment:

DW: 1. You fail to see that it is your interpretation of Romans 9 - that National election of Jews is what makes them the children of promise is exactly what Paul is repudiating.

HP: You fail to understand anything I have stated. I have never stated or implied any such thing.

It does no good to post your other misrepresentation now. I will stick to this one. No way does my first quote state or imply what you say it does period. You can post whatsoever you so desire, but you have not cleared up this point. If you cannot understand how you are misrepresenting what I said, that is a further indication to me that our discussion on this issue is fruitless.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Original comment by HP: "].....as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations He first was speaking of. Reason in no wise makes any such leap of judgment. You simply cannot conclude as DW obviously concludes from his manner of using the text as opposed to interpreting the text. If the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated...[/

Your caught in your own words and your own words say that you believe the context is the election of nations not individuals and I quote:

as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations...... if the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated - DP

You clearly state that it is your opinion that this passage is not about "individuals" and individual salvation but about "nations" and the "the context of election is nations".

I have shown from the context that it is a denial that election of nations obtains individual salvation but rather election of individuals obtain salvation just as Paul says clearly in Ephesians 1:4 and 2 Thes. 2:13 "chosen to salvation." Likewise in Romans 9:11 Jacob as an individual within the womb of an individual was chosen by God over Esau not based upon his good or bad works but "according to the purpose of election." He characterizes all the true "children of promise" or "the children of God" just as Isaac does. The continuing objections and responses to this portion are all about INDIVIDUAL salvation.

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.


DP you are simply caught with no way out and that is precisely why you are running. Your caught in your own words.

as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations...... if the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated - DP

 

[Eric B]

Dr Walter, you say you did not deny that nations were being discussed here, but then you seem to be going into the whole "objection" argument.
But it would stand that if nations are being discussed, then it is the concept of nation the objections would be against. And this makes perfect sense when you realize how much the Jews trusted in their national heritage as making them the elect. That was everything to them! It is why Christ was ultimately rejected by them. He didn't advance their national "salvation" program.
In fact, that's what the whole contrast of "flesh vs spirit" is about (flesh is more than sertain sins as we often treat it. It's is that their physical lineage made them thr true people of God).

The original reader would understand this, and would have no reason to suddenly be thinking about some class of people called "non-elect individuals".
The way this affects the individual is that each person must be apart of spiritual Israel rather than physical ("fleshy") Israel, to be apart of the elect.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr Walter, you say you did not deny that nations were being discussed here, but then you seem to be going into the whole "objection" argument.
But it would stand that if nations are being discussed, then it is the concept of nation the objections would be against. And this makes perfect sense when you realize how much the Jews trusted in their national heritage as making them the elect. That was everything to them! It is why Christ was ultimately rejected by them. He didn't advance their national "salvation" program.
In fact, that's what the whole contrast of "flesh vs spirit" is about (flesh is more than sertain sins as we often treat it. It's is that their physical lineage made them thr true people of God).

The original reader would understand this, and would have no reason to suddenly be thinking about some class of people called "non-elect individuals".
The way this affects the individual is that each person must be apart of spiritual Israel rather than physical ("fleshy") Israel, to be apart of the elect.

Yes, that is exactly what Paul is repudiating - that national election obtains immediate automatic individual salvation.

As Paul says in Galatians 4:18 that true children of God are as Isaac - the children of promise.

Salvation is an individual election to salvation like Paul tells the Epheisans (Eph. 1:4) and the Thessalonicans (1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13).

This is the very reason why Paul turns the reader to consider the birth of Isaac and the birth of Jacob. Although Abraham had eight sons that we know of, all of them were "children of the flesh" and none of those were "children of promise" as was Isaac. Isaac's birth was a SUPERNATURAL birth and so are ALL those who are children of the promise.

Jacob's birth and subsequent actions did not determine or have any influence upon God's choice of him over Esau. Indeed, if you compare Esau to Jacob, Esau was the better of the two in regard to works. Jacob even in the womb was a "supplanter" (meaning of "Jacob") and afterwards conived, lied and used deceit to take away what was Esau's by NATURAL birth. However, Jacob was God's elect and Esau was not and so are all "the children of promise (2 Thes. 2:13).

Some go back to Genesis and Malichi and try to make an argument that God is really talking about "nations" not the individual persons of Jacob and Esau. However, the "nations" developed from these two men also characterize "the children of promise" versus "the children of the flesh." That is the contextual intent for bringing the birth of Jacob and Esau into this particular context of Romans 9. This is easily proven by the fact that the remaining portion that defends these statements has nothing to say about the nation of Israel versus the nation of Edom but about INDIVIDUAL's and their INDIVIDUAL salvation whether they are "OF the Jews" or "OF the gentiles" as all INDIVIDUAL'S originate from one of two sources and salvation is never in being NATURALLY born into either one of those two sources but is a result of INDIVIDUAL election, supernatural birth and calling (Rom. 9:24).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

HP: This is a most interesting portion of the text. Can you imagine how meaningless such heaviness and continual sorrow for his brethren would be if all was predetermined by God before any were ever born apart from any conditions? What utter nonsense all of this fret if in fact necessity rules and all was predetermined. But that is simply not the case.

Although they were partakers of the adoption, glory, covenants the giving of the law, the service of the law and even the promises to some degree or another, none of this in and of itself saved nor could it. Certainly their election to be such partakers was indeed unconditional but to actually become a child of God they had to have a change of heart and life. It is interesting to note that the Israelites knew full well that even producing a sacrifice apart from repentance was meaningless. Obviously there were many that were not repentant and were not the children of God, hence the concern by the apostle for their salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here God shows clearly that He has every right to bestow favor on any group of people He so desires, just as He had bestowed the things listed in verse 4. Of all the things listed, one thing NOT listed is salvation. They might well be granted the things in verse 4 unconditionally, but nothing granted unconditionally could save them or coerce them into the kingdom of God, and again they knew that well by their insistence of repentance for sacrifices to be accepted.

So here we have blessings and covenants, but no unconditional salvation. It should be obvious that verse 13 is not indicating the granting of salvation or the withholding of it, but rather is again, in keeping with the things granted in verse 4, speaking of God desiring to grant special privilege to one nation, while withholding it from others for purposes known only to Himself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Once men sin, God is under no obligation to save any. He is under no obligation to even give them the hope of salvation. Once they voluntarily sin without force or coercion, they have chosen their end. God can show mercy on whosoever He wills, and the rest will continue to be hardened. There is nothing here about coercion to do evil, or that those not elected are coerced to do evil. This passage is addressing the issue of the justice in God showing mercy as He deems wise to bestow, and in no wise indicates that any, elect or non elect, are necessitated to anything besides the items granted or withheld as set forth in verse 4, which again does not speak to individual salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

HP: Note clearly that mercy is not synonymous with individual salvation. God shows mercy in many way, one being by the granting of the things shown in verse 4 which again does not include salvation. The very notion of allowing one to hear the gospel is mercy.

On the issue of hardening, it is not that God coerces men to disobey or that He coerces them to be hardened, but rather allows them to make their own choices to do evil, drift away from the influences God has in mercy bestowed upon them. God hardens simply by not forcing them to act in accordance to His will and even by withdrawing His Spirit to some degree or another or withdrawing it completely in the case of some. Neither Scripture nor reason indicates that God coerces any to come or go away from His gracious influences apart from their own willful choices to do so. Note carefully that again, individual salvation is not the topic here, but rather is speaking of gracious influences that lead to privilege. Certainly the privileges are aimed at securing individual salvation, but it is clear they do not cause ones salvation.

Verse 19 speaks of resisting His will, and shows that none can, or can they? They cannot resist His will in relationship to the things mentioned in verse 4, for again God does those thing unconditionally. On the other hand, many have resisted and will resist His will in connection to individual salvation, for it is God’s will that none should perish, but many will. God’s will necessitates no man’s salvation. It is a free gift that must not only be accepted but one must fulfill the stated conditions to enter into that hope. Repentance is the first voluntary condition that must be met. Clearly the apostle is speaking again in these verses concerning the issues mentioned in verse 4 and the grace that grants to me the opportunity to be saved, but in no wise is indicating Election to salvation in any necessitated sense. Again, the matter of His will not coercing any to salvation or the rejection of salvation by other passages of Scripture should make that abundantly clear.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 9: 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Note carefully that nowhere speaks specifically about individual salvation, but rather I believe He is making reference once again to the two nations. Even if one to read into this portion of the text the notion of individuals, it does not indicate the means by which they were fitted, and it certainly does not indicate they were forced or coerced to destruction I for one believe He is still speaking of granting special privileges or withholding special privileges to these nations spoken of. One might object and say, but what about the ‘glory?’ We saw clearly back in verse 4 that glory was part of the special privileges granted, but again, even glory being granted to one nation as opposed to the other secured the salvation in and of itself of no one.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 ¶ As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

This portion of the text now adds the Gentiles into the equation. If we have learned anything God is telling the Jews that He can do the very same thing for the Gentiles, by granting to them special privilege as well. Do privileges in and of themselves save, even if glory is bestowed? According to the Scriptures the answer is no. Special privilege, privilege elected for some to receive and in this case the Gentiles as the receptors, saves no one. God no more coerces Gentiles to salvation than He did the Jews by electing to grant special privilege and opportunity. God them tells some they are not His people in spite of all special privilege, but there are some are and others that will be. There will be a remnant saved, although the conditions for those that will be saved are not directly spoken of in this passage for that was not the object of this passage.

In summary, the purpose of this passage is clear. It is not trying to show that salvation is according to unconditional election as many would try to indicate. This passage directs its attention to special privilege and opportunity, and shows that whether it is granted to the Jew or the Gentile, such privilege in and of itself will not nor can it save.

Ye must be born again and that by the stated conditions of salvation God has clearly set forth, repentance and faith in the redeeming blood of Christ being the first initial two.

 

[Dr. Walter]

All your posts are built upon the same straw man argument. I said the only coersion came from themselves from their own nature and INWARDLY. However, you are presenting my position as though I believed God coerces them to sin and to be saved against their will. It is obvious you have not understood what I said or you are intentionally distorting my position.

You could not answer my posts. You could not put my position or yours to the simple tests so you resort to perverting the texts and perverting my position.

Ro 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here God shows clearly that He has every right to bestow favor on any group of people He so desires, just as He had bestowed the things listed in verse 4. Of all the things listed, one thing NOT listed is salvation. They might well be granted the things in verse 4 unconditionally, but nothing granted unconditionally could save them or coerce them into the kingdom of God, and again they knew that well by their insistence of repentance for sacrifices to be accepted.

So here we have blessings and covenants, but no unconditional salvation. It should be obvious that verse 13 is not indicating the granting of salvation or the withholding of it, but rather is again, in keeping with the things granted in verse 4, speaking of God desiring to grant special privilege to one nation, while withholding it from others for purposes known only to Himself.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You fail to include what gives immediate rise to this objection. The election of God occurs BEFORE Jacob or Esau sinned. So your opening statement "once men sin" is a PERVERSION of the context.

Ro 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Once men sin, God is under no obligation to save any. He is under no obligation to even give them the hope of salvation. Once they voluntarily sin without force or coercion, they have chosen their end. God can show mercy on whosoever He wills, and the rest will continue to be hardened. There is nothing here about coercion to do evil, or that those not elected are coerced to do evil. This passage is addressing the issue of the justice in God showing mercy as He deems wise to bestow, and in no wise indicates that any, elect or non elect, are necessitated to anything besides the items granted or withheld as set forth in verse 4, which again does not speak to individual salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In this post you interpret the potters application to INDIVIDUALS and then in your next post you deny it has any application to INDIVIDUALS but rather only to nations! Can't make up your mind? When you misintepret the scriptures it leads to more misinterpration of scriptures and confusion.

Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

HP: Note clearly that mercy is not synonymous with individual salvation. God shows mercy in many way, one being by the granting of the things shown in verse 4 which again does not include salvation. The very notion of allowing one to hear the gospel is mercy.

On the issue of hardening, it is not that God coerces men to disobey or that He coerces them to be hardened, but rather allows them to make their own choices to do evil, drift away from the influences God has in mercy bestowed upon them. God hardens simply by not forcing them to act in accordance to His will and even by withdrawing His Spirit to some degree or another or withdrawing it completely in the case of some. Neither Scripture nor reason indicates that God coerces any to come or go away from His gracious influences apart from their own willful choices to do so. Note carefully that again, individual salvation is not the topic here, but rather is speaking of gracious influences that lead to privilege. Certainly the privileges are aimed at securing individual salvation, but it is clear they do not cause ones salvation.

Verse 19 speaks of resisting His will, and shows that none can, or can they? They cannot resist His will in relationship to the things mentioned in verse 4, for again God does those thing unconditionally. On the other hand, many have resisted and will resist His will in connection to individual salvation, for it is God’s will that none should perish, but many will. God’s will necessitates no man’s salvation. It is a free gift that must not only be accepted but one must fulfill the stated conditions to enter into that hope. Repentance is the first voluntary condition that must be met. Clearly the apostle is speaking again in these verses concerning the issues mentioned in verse 4 and the grace that grants to me the opportunity to be saved, but in no wise is indicating Election to salvation in any necessitated sense. Again, the matter of His will not coercing any to salvation or the rejection of salvation by other passages of Scripture should make that abundantly clear.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Don't you see that the "children of promise" is interchangable with "the children of God" in verse 8. The same Paul using the same language in Gal. 5:18 says As Isaac was so are we the "children of promise" and that circumcision profits nothing but rather a NEW CREATURE or new birth.

His argument is very very simple. You do not become "the children of God" by natural birth but by supernatural birth as pictured in the birth of Isaac.

You don't have a clue what Paul is talking about.

Ro 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here God shows clearly that He has every right to bestow favor on any group of people He so desires, just as He had bestowed the things listed in verse 4. Of all the things listed, one thing NOT listed is salvation. They might well be granted the things in verse 4 unconditionally, but nothing granted unconditionally could save them or coerce them into the kingdom of God, and again they knew that well by their insistence of repentance for sacrifices to be accepted.

So here we have blessings and covenants, but no unconditional salvation. It should be obvious that verse 13 is not indicating the granting of salvation or the withholding of it, but rather is again, in keeping with the things granted in verse 4, speaking of God desiring to grant special privilege to one nation, while withholding it from others for purposes known only to Himself.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ro 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.





Of all the things listed, one thing NOT listed is salvation. They might well be granted the things in verse 4 unconditionally, but nothing granted unconditionally could save them or coerce them into the kingdom of God, and again they knew that well by their insistence of repentance for sacrifices to be accepted.

So here we have blessings and covenants, but no unconditional salvation. It should be obvious that verse 13 is not indicating the granting of salvation or the withholding of it, but rather is again, in keeping with the things granted in verse 4, speaking of God desiring to grant special privilege to one nation, while withholding it from others for purposes known only to Himself.

How does your commentary answer the cheif problem of this context? Verses 6-8 raises the problem. Since the nation of Israel has rejected Christ where are the children promised to Abraham? Has God failed in his promise? Your commentary ignores the very problem Paul is attempting to answer!!!!!!!

Your commentary not only completely ignores but denies the very issue of "children of the flesh" versus "children of God" as you deny any kind of personal salvation is even the subject of these verses.

In verses 7-8 Paul introduces the "children of promise" and calls them "the children of God." In verse 24 Paul closes this section with the same "children of promise" or "children of God" showing that Romans 9:7-24 deals with this same subject that your commentary not only ignores but denies.

The true children of God are called "the promised children" and anyone slightly familiar with the birth of Isaac knows this is an explicit reference to unconditional birth of Isaac as Abraham and Sarah did not assist in the birth of Isaac at but God birthed Isaac according to his time table by his power alone. Paul says that Israelites that are natural born are not the children of God but only those born after Isaac - supernatural born - unconditionally born.

The fact that these children of promise are also identified as "the children of God" demonstrates that salvation is the topic through supernatural birth.

The whole section is about unconditional individual salvation of the children of promise and yet you not only completely ignore it, but deny it. You have not given a commentary. You have given a white wash.